Taxed In the USA    www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm

 31 questions and answers about the IRS [Courtesy of The Stanley Scoop]

 31 Questions and Answers about the Internal Revenue Service, Revision 3.2 certified by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of California, Federal Witness, Private Attorney General, Author and Webmaster of the Supreme Law Library Common Law Copyright All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

Shortened listing.  Search for original document on internet.

Regarding IRS & IRC Internal Revenue Code

After much research, and court findings, it seems the Internal Revenue Service ['IRS'] in NOT an organization within the U.S. Department of the Treasury?

The U.S. Department of the Treasury was organized by statutes now codified in Title 31 of the United States Code, abbreviated '31 U.S.C.' The only mention of the IRS anywhere in 31 U.S.C. §§ 301-310 is an authorization for the President to appoint an Assistant General Counsel in the U.S. Department of the Treasury to be the Chief Counsel for the IRS. The U.S. Supreme Court admitted that no organic Act for the IRS could be found, after they searched for such an Act all the way back to the Civil War, which ended in the year 1865 A.D. The Guarantee Clause in the U.S. Constitution guarantees the Rule of Law to all Americans

See Article IV, Section 4. Since there was no organic Act creating it,   IRS is not a lawful organization.

If not an organization within the U.S. Department of the Treasury, then what exactly is the IRS?

The IRS appears to be a collection agency working for foreign banks and operating out of Puerto Rico under color of the Federal Alcohol Administration

By what legal authority, if any, has the IRS established offices inside the 50 States of the Union?

Can IRS legally show 'Department of the Treasury' on their outgoing mail, inferring that it is an agency of the Department of Treasury of the united States Government ?

Is the IRS a U.S. federal agency of the US Dept. of Justice ?

The federal regulations create an income tax liability for what specific classes of people?

The regulations at 26 CFR 1.1-1 attempted to create a specific liability for all 'citizens of the United States' and all 'residents of the United States.' However, those regulations correspond to IRC section 1, which does not create a specific liability for taxes imposed by subtitle A.

How many classes of citizens are there in the born & living in the continental united States, and how did this number come to be?

I understand there are two classes of citizens: State Citizens and federal citizens. The first class originates in the Qualifications Clauses in the U.S. Constitution, where the term 'Citizen of the United States' is used. [Notice the UPPER-CASE 'C' in 'Citizen.' The pertinent court cases have defined the term 'United States' in these Clauses to mean 'States United,' and the full term means 'Citizen of ONE OF the States United.'

The second class originates in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, where the term 'citizen of the United States' is used. This Act was later codified at 42 U.S.C. 1983. Notice the lower-case 'c' in 'citizen.' The pertinent court cases have held that Congress thereby created a municipal franchise primarily for members of the Negro race, who were freed by President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation [a war measure,] and later by the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery and involuntary servitude.

The California Supreme Court ruled that there was no such thing as a 'citizen of the United States' Only federal citizens have standing to invoke 42 U.S.C. 1983; whereas State Citizens do not.

Can one be a State Citizen, without also being a federal citizen?

The 1866 Civil Rights Act was municipal law, confined to the District of Columbia and other limited areas where Congress is the 'state' government with exclusive legislative jurisdiction there. These areas are now identified as 'the federal zone.'

Several courts have already recognized our Right to be State Citizens without also becoming federal citizens.

But, State Citizens are under no legal obligation to join or pledge any allegiance to that legislative democracy; their allegiance is to one or more of the several States of the Union

Who was Frank Brushaber, and why was his U.S. Supreme Court case so important?

Frank Brushaber was the Plaintiff in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1 [1916,] the first U.S. Supreme Court case to consider the so-called 16th amendment. Brushaber identified himself as a Citizen of New York State and a resident of the Borough of Brooklyn, in the city of New York, and nobody challenged that claim. The Union Pacific Railroad Company was a federal corporation created by Act of Congress to build a railroad through Utah. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Frank Brushaber, and upheld the tax as a lawful excise, or indirect tax. The most interesting result of the Court's ruling was a Treasury Decision ['T.D.'] that the U.S. Department of the Treasury later issued as a direct consequence of the high Court's opinion. In T.D. 2313, the U.S. Treasury Department expressly cited the Brushaber decision, and it identified Frank Brushaber as a 'nonresident alien' and the Union Pacific Railroad Company as a 'domestic corporation.' This Treasury Decision has never been modified or repealed. T.D. 2313 is crucial evidence proving that the income tax provisions of the IRC are municipal law, with no territorial jurisdiction inside the 50 States of the Union. Accordingly, all State Citizens are nonresident aliens with respect to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress, i.e. the federal zone.

'Tax evasion' is the crime of evading a lawful tax. In the context of federal income taxes, this crime can only be committed by persons who have a legal liability to pay, i.e. the withholding agent. If one is not employed by the federal government, one is not subject to the Public Salary Tax Act unless one chooses to be treated 'as if' one is a federal government 'employee.' This is typically done by executing a valid Form W-4.

However, Form W-4 is not mandatory for workers who are not 'employed' by the federal government. Corporations chartered by the 50 States of the Union are technically 'foreign' corporations with respect to the IRC; they are decidedly not the federal government, and should not be regarded 'as if' they are the federal government, particularly when they were never created by any Act of Congress.

Moreover, the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can only create a corporation in its capacity as the Legislature for the federal zone. Such corporations are the only 'domestic' corporations under the pertinent federal laws. There are important distinction between 'foreign' and 'domestic' corporations in simple, straightforward language.

If Congress were authorized to create national corporations, such a questionable authority would invade States' rights reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment, namely, the right to charter their own domestic corporations. The repeal of Prohibition left the Tenth Amendment unqualified.

For purposes of the IRC, the term 'employer' refers only to federal government agencies, and an 'employee' is a person who works for such an 'employer.'

Why does IRS Form 1040 not require a Notary Public to notarize a taxpayer's signature?

At 28 U.S.C. section 1746, Congress authorized written verifications to be executed under penalty of perjury without the need for a Notary Public, i.e. to witness one's signature.

This statute identifies two different formats for such written verifications: [1] those executed outside the 'United States' and [2] those executed inside the 'United States.' These two formats correspond to sections 1746[1] and 1746[2,] respectively.

What is extremely revealing in this statute is the format for verifications executed 'outside the United States.' In this latter format, the statute adds the qualifying phrase 'under the laws of the United States of America.' Clearly, the terms 'United States' and 'United States of America' are both used in this same statute. They are not one and the same. The former refers to the federal government - in the U.S. Constitution and throughout most federal statutes. The latter refers to the 50 States that are united by, and under, the U.S. Constitution. 28 U.S.C. 1746 is the only federal statute in all of Title 28 of the United States Code that utilizes the term 'United States of America,' as such.

Verifications made under penalty of perjury are outside the 50 States of the Union ['the State zone'] if and when they are executed inside the 'United States' ['the federal zone'.] Likewise, verifications made under penalty of perjury are inside the 50 States of the Union, if and when they are executed outside the 'United States.' The format for signatures on Form 1040 is the one for verifications made inside the United States [federal zone] and outside the United States of America [State zone.]

Does the term 'United States' have multiple legal meanings and, if so, what are they?

The term 'United States' may be used in any one of several senses. [1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. [2] It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or [3] it may be the collective name of the States which are united by and under the Constitution. This is the very same definition that is found in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition. The second of these three meanings refers to the federal zone and to Congress only when it is legislating in its municipal capacity. For example, Congress is legislating in its municipal capacity whenever it creates a federal corporation, like the United States Postal Service.

Is the term 'income' defined in the IRC and, if not, where is it defined?

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled that the term 'income' is not defined anywhere in the IRC: 'The general term 'income' is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code.' U.S. v. Ballard, 535 F.2d 400, 404 [8th Circuit, 1976.] Moreover, ,] the high Court told Congress it could not legislate any definition of 'income' because that term was believed to be in the U.S. Constitution. The high Court defined 'income' to mean the profit or gain derived from corporate activities. In that instance, the tax is a lawful excise tax imposed upon the corporate privilege of limited liability.

What is municipal law, and are the IRC's income tax provisions municipal law, or not?

The IRC's income tax provisions are municipal law. Municipal law is law that is enacted to govern the internal affairs of a sovereign State; in legal circles… In fact, American legal encyclopedias define 'municipal' to mean 'internal,' and for this reason alone, the Internal Revenue Code is really a Municipal Revenue Code.

A mountain of additional evidence has now been assembled and published in the book 'The Federal Zone' to prove that the IRC's income tax provisions are municipal law.

One of the most famous pieces of evidence is a letter from a Connecticut Congresswoman, summarizing the advice of legal experts employed by the Congressional Research Service and the Legislative Counsel. Their advice confirmed that the meaning of 'State' at IRC section 3121 [e] is restricted to the named territories and possessions of D.C., Guam, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico.

In other words, the term 'State' in that statute, and in all similar federal statutes, includes ONLY the places expressly named, and no more.

What does it mean if my State is not mentioned in any of the federal income tax statutes?

The general rule is that federal government powers must be expressed and enumerated. For example, the U.S. Constitution is a grant of enumerated powers. If a power is not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, then Congress does not have any authority to exercise that power. This rule is tersely expressed in the Ninth Amendment, in the Bill of Rights.

If California is not mentioned in any of the federal income tax statutes, then those statutes have no force or effect within that State. This is also true of all 50 States.

Strictly speaking, the omission or exclusion of anyone or any thing from a federal statute can be used to infer that the omission or exclusion was intentional by Congress. In Latin, this is tersely stated as follows: Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. In English, this phrase is literally translated: Inclusion of one thing is the exclusion of all other things [that are not mentioned.] This phrase can be found in any edition of Black's Law Dictionary; it is a maxim of statutory construction.

The many different definitions of the term 'State' that are found in federal laws are intentionally written to appear as if they include the 50 States PLUS the other places mentioned. As the legal experts in Congress have now confirmed, this is NOT the correct way to interpret, or to construct, these statutes.

If a place is not mentioned, every American may correctly infer that the omission of that place from a federal statute was an intentional act of Congress. Whenever it wants to do so, Congress knows how to define the term 'United States' to mean the 50 States of the Union. See IRC section 4612[a][4][A.]

Do federal income tax revenues pay for any government services and, if so, which government services are funded by federal income taxes?

The IRS is technically a trust with a domicile in Puerto Rico.

They are technically not an 'agency' of the federal government, as that term is defined in the Freedom of Information Act and in the Administrative Procedures Act. The governments of the federal territories are expressly excluded from the definition of 'agency' in those Acts of Congress..

The final report of the Grace Commission, convened under President Ronald Reagan, quietly admitted that none of the funds they collect from federal income taxes goes to pay for any federal government services. The Grace Commission found that those funds were being used to pay for interest on the federal debt, and income transfer payments to beneficiaries of entitlement programs like federal pension plans.

30. How can the Freedom of Information Act ['FOIA'] help me to answer other key tax questions?

The availability of correct information about federal government operations is fundamental to maintaining the freedom of the American People. The Freedom of Information Act ['FOIA',] at 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq., was intended to make government documents available with a minimal amount of effort by the People.

As long as a document is not protected by one of the reasonable exemptions itemized in the FOIA, a requester need only submit a brief letter to the agency having custody of the requested document[s.] If the requested document is not produced within 10 working days [excluding weekends and federal holidays,] the requester need only prepare a single appeal letter.

If the requested document is not produced within another 20 working days after the date of the appeal letter, the requester is automatically allowed to petition a District Court of the United States [Article III DCUS, not the Article IV USDC] - to compel production of the requested document, and judicially to enjoin the improper withholding of same. See 5 U.S.C. 552[a][4] [B.] The general rule is that statutes conferring original jurisdiction on federal district courts must be strictly construed.

Application of the FOIA to request certified copies of statutes and regulations which should exist, but do not exist. A typical request anyone can make, to which the U.S. Treasury has now fallen totally silent, is for a certified copy of all statutes which create a specific liability for taxes imposed by subtitle A of the IRC. For example, see the FOIA request that this writer prepared for author Lynne Meredith.

A FOIA request should not be directed to the IRS, because they are not an 'agency' as that term is defined at 5 U.S.C. 551[1][C.] Address it instead to the

Disclosure Officer, Disclosure Services, Room 1054-MT,

U.S. Department of the Treasury,

Washington 20220, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA.

 This is the format for 'foreign' addresses, as explained in USPS Publication #221.